I dislike "we shouldn& #39;t fund millionaires& #39; ed" for the same broad rhetorical reasons I don& #39;t like "Abolish billionaires." It& #39;s not b/c I care about millionaires or billionaires, it& #39;s b/c I think our rhetorical frames should focus on how/why we want to help people who need help.

If it& #39;s true that a candidate believes that free college for all would place an undue burden on the middle class for funding the upper class& #39;s education, the candidate should just say that. That& #39;s an important distinction. "We don& #39;t want to pay for millionaire& #39;s kids" isn& #39;t one.

These are not pro-Billionaire or pro-Millionaire tweets. Rather, I am arguing that our rhetoric should focus on who we want to help and how we are going to help them. We shouldn& #39;t focus on who we don& #39;t want to help.

Oh, and by the way, I don& #39;t want to pay for millionaires& #39; kids to go to school on a personal level. I find the idea irritating. But, if it worked out that a universal approach would be an overall net benefit for *other* families, I would be happy to pay those taxes

I haven& #39;t been convinced one way or another. I certainly think college needs to be more affordable & I& #39;m open to it being free. I want us to look at the whole picture and figure out how to make it work (WHILE ALSO FOCUSSING ON PRE-L, K-12, and TRADE SCHOOL)

*PRE-K